The “Memorandum of Telephone Conversation” released by the White House on Wednesday shows President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine discussing a largely as-expected cast of characters swirling around Trump’s request that Ukrainian officials investigate his political rivals: Hillary Clinton and Joe and Hunter Biden.  But we did get one eyebrow-raising cameo – Attorney General William Barr. Trump’s conversation with Zelensky creates a thicket of problems for Barr. And it reminds us that Trump views the Justice Department as his own one-stop, in-house criminal defense and opposition research firm – perhaps justifiably, given Barr’s unprincipled, sycophantic conduct as attorney general.

First things first. Barr must recuse (remove, in plain English) himself from the Ukraine case for the most fundamental of reasons: he is now a witness in the case, like it or not, thanks to Trump. Trump repeatedly tells Zelensky that Barr will contact Ukrainian officials to follow up on Trump’s request that Ukraine dig up dirt on Clinton and Biden. “[W]hatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,” Trump tells Zelensky in one passage.

This is the stuff of first-year law school ethics class, but Barr has a history of contorting ethics rules to stay on high-profile cases despite obvious conflicts of interest. Barr oversaw Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and obstruction of justice even though he had conclusively pre-judged it before he became attorney general, writing in an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department that Mueller’s theory of obstruction of justice was “fatally misconceived.” And Barr stayed on the Jeffrey Epstein case even though (1) his father personally knew and had hired Epstein as a teacher, and (2) his law firm had represented Epstein. By comparison, I once got kicked off a case because my father’s law partner had represented a party adverse to a defendant in a low-stakes civil case about ten years prior. That’s peanuts compared to the conflicts of interest that Barr has brushed aside to remain on the nation’s highest-priority cases.

It remains to be seen whether Barr actually did the things Trump told Zelensky Barr would do – the Justice Department has claimed Trump never contacted Barr about contacting the Ukrainians — but either way, Barr now has serious questions to answer. Did Trump or anyone else ever ask Barr to contact Ukraine? Did Barr know about Trump’s communications with Ukraine? Did Barr know about efforts by Giuliani to connect with Ukraine? Did Barr ever use the Justice Department to investigate Biden or otherwise to help Trump find dirt on his political rivals? What role did Barr play in advising the Director of National Intelligence to withhold an urgent, credible whistleblower complaint about Trump from Congress, despite a statute that requires that the Inspector General “shall submit” such complaints to Congress?  Given these questions, Barr soon could find himself on the “You are commanded to appear” line of a Congressional subpoena. 

Not only has Barr reportedly failed to recuse himself from the Ukraine case, but he has pulled a good old Billy Barr Special: distort the law to reach a result most favorable to Trump. The Justice Department reportedly decided last week not to investigate the Ukraine scandal because the transcript purportedly presents no evidence Trump solicited election aid from a foreign national (which would violate federal law) because dirt on an electoral opponent is not a “thing of value.”  In fairness to Barr, Mueller similarly copped out when he decided not to charge Donald Trump Jr. for the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which Trump Jr. expected to obtain campaign dirt from Russians on Clinton. 

But, to put it bluntly, both Barr and Mueller wimped out. It’s common sense. Of course, damaging information about an electoral opponent is of some value, certainly more than the minimal requirement to satisfy federal law. Why else would campaigns routinely spend thousands of dollars on oppo research? And, in Trump’s case, why would he go so far as to solicit foreign assistance to get campaign dirt, if it had no value whatsoever?

Bigger picture, Trump’s conversation with Zelensky once again evinces his belief that Barr and the Justice Department serve Donald J. Trump first and the American public second, or perhaps not at all. Justice Department prosecutors are, by nature and training, allergic to politics. I was taught at the Southern District of New York to steer as far away from politics as possible; we were discouraged from displaying lawn signs for local candidates or donating a few bucks to a friend running for office (a convenient excuse to skip fundraisers, actually). But in Trump’s mind, it is entirely kosher for the nation’s top prosecutor to coordinate – or, dare I say, “collude” – with the leader of a foreign nation solely to help find campaign dirt on potential electoral rivals.

Trump’s astonishing misunderstanding of the Justice Department is largely on Trump himself. But some of the blame also falls on Barr. Barr’s slanted decision-making and solicitude towards Trump throughout his tenure as attorney general have diminished the Justice Department and undermined its standing as a bulwark of credibility and independence. The Justice Department will survive – it always does – and eventually return to its proper stature. But it will take years to undo the damage Barr has done.

Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities